Why do people reject evolution?

[Gearhead mk2]

snip

...oh my god. A fundie that actually wants a proper debate instead of just saying goddidit! It is a pleasure to meet you sir. I have been waiting for AGES to have an intelligent, reasonable discussion with someone like you. And no, I'm not mocking you, this is geniune excitment! I like a good debate.

Anyway, the earth's magnetic feild. Here's a question for you: If the earth's magnetic feild, or the whole earth itself, was only created about 6000 years ago, how do you account for fossils and ancient species that are dated from before that period? I get most ancient species were reptillian, but even they wouldn't be able to survive with no protection from the sun at all. Nothing would be alive save maybe some very small organisms in the deep oceans.

And wait, if you belive in micro-evolution, why not macro-evolution? Macro is the same thing, just on a larger scale and requiring more time. I get that if you think the earth is only 6000 years old that wouldn't be enough time for macro-evolution in practice, but do still belive the theory or discount it entirely?

 

[Olikar]

Beats me. I believe it and I'm a Christian. Don't see how the bible even says its not true

In chrsitianity, the people who don't belive in evolution bassically interpret the garden of Eden as completly literal. They think that the world is only 6000 years old, and that all it's countries, animal, plants, and ecosystems have stayed the same since the dawn of time. Something that just looking in ANY SCIENCE BOOK EVER would disprove.

Wrong. Creationists believe in micro-evolution (an organisms ability to adapt and change over time) but not in macro-evolution (that this change can lead to the rise of new species).

There is no such thing as Micro or Macro evolution, it's a fallacy created by creationists when they realized evolution could be directly observed in things like bacteria.

 

[Batou667]

...I'm also not actually sure if you're trolling or if that's an accurate representation of your beliefs.

If you're in any doubt, look at the post this guy was suspended for. Of course it's a troll.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

because it is a theory and not a scientific fact or law.

i would make any stupid theory.

say all serial killers have midiclorins from star wars caused them to kill.
hasnt been proven to be true or false.

but lets pretend that its true.

argument in a nut shell

This statement is based upon a misunderstanding of the word 'Theory' in a scientific context.

A scientific theory is "A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and they aim to make predictions and expatiation of nature.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative

OT

My view on it is that people don't accept that evolution is real because it implies that they are not superior to animals. A lot of people don't like it when you tell them that they are not some special super-being that was put here to rule over the rest of nature and stand apart from it. It's a human thing and unless you have been lucky enough to be educated on the subject then chances are you will only have a shaky understanding of it so are more likely to reject it.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

snip

...oh my god. A fundie that actually wants a proper debate instead of just saying goddidit! It is a pleasure to meet you sir. I have been waiting for AGES to have an intelligent, reasonable discussion with someone like you. And no, I'm not mocking you, this is geniune excitment! I like a good debate.

Anyway, the earth's magnetic feild. Here's a question for you: If the earth's magnetic feild, or the whole earth itself, was only created about 6000 years ago, how do you account for fossils and ancient species that are dated from before that period? I get most ancient species were reptillian, but even they wouldn't be able to survive with no protection from the sun at all. Nothing would be alive save maybe some very small organisms in the deep oceans.

Creationists don't believe in carbon dating, the most accurate dating method we possess today.

For example we can use carbon dating to accurately prove whether something is 100 years old, 500 years old or 2000 years old and even back up that result with other evidence from that time period. And all that is fine because it falls within the 6000 year "calendar" of Creationists. However if you use carbon dating to prove something is MORE than 6000 years old (say...6500, or even 200 million) then Creationists will quickly say that carbon dating is completely wrong.

Almost everything in the Bible has to be taken metaphorically/figuratively in order for it to make any sense.

 

[Daveman]

- Lack of understanding.
- Brainwashing.
- People's natural desire to believe everything has a purpose.

Those are the main reasons people don't accept it, and among adults it tends to be the first on the list. I mean it's phenomenally easy to comprehend when explained right. At school we got taught evolution is where tiny changes take place (mutations) and then those changes that are good express themselves in the next generation (survival of the fittest). Any "large" changes are merely extrapolations of that same process over a very very very long time. We never got taught micro/macro evolution because it just confuses the point and the idea of macro evolution is almost deliberately designed to sound preposterous. I genuinely had to look it up when somebody brought it up on this forum. But yeah, when explained correctly I can't understand why people wouldn't understand.

I do think most people take serious issue with abiogenesis though, which I think is a bit more reasonable, but they think they're arguing against evolution.

 

[Nimzabaat]

...Because they have a vested stake in believing something else.

And as long as someone is willing to step forward and say something in an authoritative manner, someone will believe them, and many more will be afraid to admit that they have their doubts.

That statement goes both ways and I totally agree with it. I've been around long enough to see scientists change their minds a few times. It saddens me that the "educated and enlightened" on this thread are just as close minded and dogmatic in their beliefs as the people they are arguing against. That's why we can't have nice things.

 

[Heronblade]

snip

...oh my god. A fundie that actually wants a proper debate instead of just saying goddidit! It is a pleasure to meet you sir. I have been waiting for AGES to have an intelligent, reasonable discussion with someone like you. And no, I'm not mocking you, this is geniune excitment! I like a good debate.

Anyway, the earth's magnetic feild. Here's a question for you: If the earth's magnetic feild, or the whole earth itself, was only created about 6000 years ago, how do you account for fossils and ancient species that are dated from before that period? I get most ancient species were reptillian, but even they wouldn't be able to survive with no protection from the sun at all. Nothing would be alive save maybe some very small organisms in the deep oceans.

Creationists don't believe in carbon dating, the most accurate dating method we possess today.

For example we can use carbon dating to accurately prove whether something is 100 years old, 500 years old or 2000 years old and even back up that result with other evidence from that time period. And all that is fine because it falls within the 6000 year "calendar" of Creationists. However if you use carbon dating to prove something is MORE than 6000 years old (say...6500, or even 200 million) then Creationists will quickly say that carbon dating is completely wrong.

Uh, if you try to use carbon dating for something 200 million years in age, the creationist would be completely correct in saying it is wrong. C-14 decays to the point of no longer being usable for dating within ~60,000 years. There are other radiometric systems we can use for items older than that, but they do not involve carbon, and tend to be somewhat less accurate.

EDIT: Also to anyone saying evolution is a fact you're wrong, no scientific theory can ever be a fact because it goes against the core principles of the scientific method.

yes and no. A concept can have both a law and a theory attached to the name.

A law is an observable fact of reality, a theory is a collection of well proven facts and experiments that attempt to explain how a law works. So, you are correct in stating that a theory cannot be fact, but as it happens, that doesn't stop evolution from being a law as well as a theory.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

Creationists don't believe in carbon dating, the most accurate dating method we possess today.

For example we can use carbon dating to accurately prove whether something is 100 years old, 500 years old or 2000 years old and even back up that result with other evidence from that time period. And all that is fine because it falls within the 6000 year "calendar" of Creationists. However if you use carbon dating to prove something is MORE than 6000 years old (say...6500, or even 200 million) then Creationists will quickly say that carbon dating is completely wrong.

Almost everything in the Bible has to be taken metaphorically/figuratively in order for it to make any sense.

Dude, I know that some (if not most) creationists are hypocrites that just want to use any argument to try and despil the devil of knowledge, science and understanding so we can go back to the Dark and Middle Ages where not being religous was punishable by death, but even in the most extreme groups we shouldn't lump everyone togeteher.

 

[BrassButtons]

Biology is the only science that isn't based on the concept of entropy - that, overtime, things will degenerate and dissipate.

That's only the case in closed systems.

These are 14 points of evidence for a young earth.

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16

Well that's a ballsy argument, seeing as those formations are what proved (generations ago) that the earth must be a few million years old at least. So either these guys are woefully ignorant of science AND the history of their own movement, or they're lying.

 

[Heronblade]

Beats me. I believe it and I'm a Christian. Don't see how the bible even says its not true

In chrsitianity, the people who don't belive in evolution bassically interpret the garden of Eden as completly literal. They think that the world is only 6000 years old, and that all it's countries, animal, plants, and ecosystems have stayed the same since the dawn of time. Something that just looking in ANY SCIENCE BOOK EVER would disprove.

Wrong. Creationists believe in micro-evolution (an organisms ability to adapt and change over time) but not in macro-evolution (that this change can lead to the rise of new species).

There is no such thing as Micro or Macro evolution, it's a fallacy created by creationists when they realized evolution could be directly observed in things like bacteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

#lolz

from the latter article:

"The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.[5][16] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.[17] While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution"."

The two terms refer to exactly the same processes, one is simply looking at things on the basis of a few generations, the other is looking at the exact same system of change spread over thousands of generations.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Uh, if you try to use carbon dating for something 200 million years in age, the creationist would be completely correct in saying it is wrong. C-14 decays to the point of no longer being usable for dating within ~60,000 years. There are other radiometric systems we can use for items older than that, but they do not involve carbon, and tend to be somewhat less accurate.

Point taken, but even if other elements are "less accurate" and we can't tell the difference between 50,000 years or 1 million years, that still blows a MASSIVE hole in the 6000-year-old earth thing they cling onto.
Even if we were to throw radioactive dating out the window and use something else...say, continental drift and the movement of tectonic plates (e.g. the origins of many countries) we'd be looking at time spans of 50-200 million years.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't want to get into a whole discussion about it because people here at the escapists are literally HOSTILE towards anyone who suggests Creationism as a viable alternative to evolution. I once had a detailed argument with someone about it, citing facts, figures, reliable scientific evidence, theories for a variety of things, etc. and he ignored it all simply on the premise that, "it was developed by propagandists." (which in many cases, it wasn't)

No offense, but conspiracy theorists generally think they have well-constructed arguments, too. And they believe physics dictates fire can't melt steel. Well, the truthers, anyway.

People might come off as hostile because it comes off as though you are insulting their intelligence.

because it is a theory and not a scientific fact or law.

If you don't know the difference between a theory and a scientific theory is, look it up. I'm sure twenty people have corrected you by now, but seriously.

 

[Heronblade]

Uh, if you try to use carbon dating for something 200 million years in age, the creationist would be completely correct in saying it is wrong. C-14 decays to the point of no longer being usable for dating within ~60,000 years. There are other radiometric systems we can use for items older than that, but they do not involve carbon, and tend to be somewhat less accurate.

Point taken, but even if other elements are "less accurate" and we can't tell the difference between 50,000 years or 1 million years, that still blows a MASSIVE hole in the 6000-year-old earth thing they cling onto.
Even if we were to throw radioactive dating out the window and use something else...say, continental drift and the movement of tectonic plates (e.g. the origins of many countries) we'd be looking at time spans of 50-200 million years.

I didn't say there weren't major holes in their hypothesis, just trying to correct a point.

Heck, even if our understanding of all radiometric dating was critically flawed (which would make the accuracy of the clock on my computer a figment of my imagination funnily enough), there's several hundred thousand years worth of ice core data at the poles. Its tough to argue with a date that anyone can count for themselves

 

[Jenvas1306]

Seeing the human race as it is not as its final stage, kinda seems like effort for improval would be futitle. Seeing ourselves as just another step might encourage some to be more than just a mutant ape and value what makes us different. Our inner monkey is greedy and stupid, hating things it doesnt understand and all those things, but we have the choice to be more than that, to become more than we are now.

everything just poping up in one week seems like a fairy tale.

BUT, evolution can explain the HOW but not the WHY. Scientific, the why is simple. things happen cause they can happen. I'm fine with that. But others might not be... and can fill the gap with a divine creature, that otherwise doesnt care much for us.


My favorite part of the creation-story, is one that you only find in some texts. Its the myth of Lilith.

 

[pilouuuu]

Because they aren't fully evolved.